What is your f1 Golden Era?

[Eric Mc]

Skeetsy said:

This era was a bit before my time, although I am a huge fan of the Lotus 49...


but I did youtube 1967 grand prix and this footage of the inaugural Canadian GP is pretty epic

1967 Canadian GP

All the best

Richard

And that was the BEST handling of the 1967 cars - being driven by the driver with the BEST car control

[RumpleFugly]

I personally love the mid to late 60s for all the common reasons but I genuinely think we will look back on the 2007 to 2012 era as golden once time has passed and people are less hung up on the rule changes. It's produced some amazing championships.

[simonpeter]

Like Eric has said F1 pre 1978, you had to be there or wait for Autosport every Thursday. Reading about 60s and 70s F1 it was clearly an exciting but very dangerous period. Those eras did produce close unpredictable racing where driver ability was paramount. Even Hunt v Lauda we had James doing things the M23 didn`t seem capable of. The advent of ground effect gave Lotus a year of dominance but then we had some truly close exciting track action. Peterson v Depallier at Kyalami in 78, Villenueve v Arnoux, Dijon 79, etc. Probably 1982 was the most incredible year with Keke winning the title with just one win. The commomn thread with supposed golden ages in F1 is that we had close racing. Cars that could follow each other without understeering off the line if they got close to each other. Pre wings 60s, slicks and wings 70s running with noses on the gearbox in front. The drivers in those days had no telemetry or radios, had to learn to set up the car with their engineers and decide their own race tactics, also change gear themselves, basically control every aspect of their race. There is endless debate on what rules could return us to that type of racing. As Adrian Newey has said recently in his last 30 years teams have gone from 50 people to 600 plus. An army to decide every aspect of a cars design and race performance. We will never again get a driver like Prost called the professor.

[wanacoop]

simonpeter said:

Like Eric has said F1 pre 1978, you had to be there or wait for Autosport every Thursday. Reading about 60s and 70s F1 it was clearly an exciting but very dangerous period. Those eras did produce close unpredictable racing where driver ability was paramount. Even Hunt v Lauda we had James doing things the M23 didn`t seem capable of. The advent of ground effect gave Lotus a year of dominance but then we had some truly close exciting track action. Peterson v Depallier at Kyalami in 78, Villenueve v Arnoux, Dijon 79, etc. Probably 1982 was the most incredible year with Keke winning the title with just one win. The commomn thread with supposed golden ages in F1 is that we had close racing. Cars that could follow each other without understeering off the line if they got close to each other. Pre wings 60s, slicks and wings 70s running with noses on the gearbox in front. The drivers in those days had no telemetry or radios, had to learn to set up the car with their engineers and decide their own race tactics, also change gear themselves, basically control every aspect of their race. There is endless debate on what rules could return us to that type of racing. As Adrian Newey has said recently in his last 30 years teams have gone from 50 people to 600 plus. An army to decide every aspect of a cars design and race performance. We will never again get a driver like Prost called the professor.

It is hard for me to imagine that situation for the driver to have no radio etc.. i wonder who would handle that type of f1 out of the current crop?

[Henry Fiddleton]

96-2002.

The build up of the Schumi era- all the attmepts etc.

Ending with a win, high revving v10's, BMW, Mclaren etc.

Good times.

[simonpeter]

Think there is only one answer to your question. Leave me alone I know what I`m doing. Kimi.

wanacoop said:

It is hard for me to imagine that situation for the driver to have no radio etc.. i wonder who would handle that type of f1 out of the current crop?

[entropy]

Peter Windsor is going back through Jim Clark's 1963 season in chronological order in his blog.

My opinion is Clark is incredibly lucky to have the adoration that he has today as my impression he could make F1 boring to watch for the masses such was he dominance.

[markcoznottz]

There's a few videos appearing on you tube of the turbo cars qualifying, Australia 1986 with murray talker and hunt, very rare that bbc showed qualifying, but it showcases how fast those cars were, and how talented senna was.

[simonpeter]

I would read a good deal more about Jimmy before you form an opinion.
He was only the second man after Fangio to show any dominance in F1, winning 25 from only 76 starts. Done at a time when F1 cars were as brittle as matchwood. He had a light and competitive Lotus which was cirtainly not as reliable as a some, he simply took less out of his car with his silky smooth style. More importantly than any stats you could quote, he was a gentleman. A down to earth Scot who loved to drive anything with wheels. He threw a Lotus cortina around like a toy and was BTCC champ too. Not to mention winning the Indy 500. I would say Innes Ireland apart, he was almost universally admired as the best in his day and remembered with love by so many who witnessed his genius. Luck never came into it with Jimmy, he was the man.

entropy said:

Peter Windsor is going back through Jim Clark's 1963 season in chronological order in his blog.

My opinion is Clark is incredibly lucky to have the adoration that he has today as my impression he could make F1 boring to watch for the masses such was he dominance.

[Derek Smith]

simonpeter said:

I would read a good deal more about Jimmy before you form an opinion.
He was only the second man after Fangio to show any dominance in F1, winning 25 from only 76 starts. Done at a time when F1 cars were as brittle as matchwood. He had a light and competitive Lotus which was cirtainly not as reliable as a some, he simply took less out of his car with his silky smooth style. More importantly than any stats you could quote, he was a gentleman. A down to earth Scot who loved to drive anything with wheels. He threw a Lotus cortina around like a toy and was BTCC champ too. Not to mention winning the Indy 500. I would say Innes Ireland apart, he was almost universally admired as the best in his day and remembered with love by so many who witnessed his genius. Luck never came into it with Jimmy, he was the man.

entropy said:

Peter Windsor is going back through Jim Clark's 1963 season in chronological order in his blog.

My opinion is Clark is incredibly lucky to have the adoration that he has today as my impression he could make F1 boring to watch for the masses such was he dominance.

I saw him race non F1 cars a number of times, most notably at Brands in a Touring Car race. It teamed with rain and the track was awash. There was talk about abandoning not just the race but the event. We were standing at Clearways and were sliding down the hill as the mud came loose.

The touring cars set off on the GP circuit and Clark, in a Galaxy, came through like a speedboat, the wash coming out either side as he slid through the bend. He was approaching Druids by the time the next car appeared.

I saw his last race at Crystal Palace, possible the last race there, in a Lotus Cortina coming second behind a 4.7 litre Mustang, possibly driven by Sir Gwaine Bailey 9memory?). He was frustrated by not being able to overtake. On the slowing down lap he put his car sideways into corners for the assistance of photographers.

He seemed at home in any car he drove.

He was a man apart. Andretti gave a similar impression in the ground effect Lotus, but that was car apart as well. Peterson was equally impressive.

That was the most startling car I saw. The difference in cornering speed and attitude was really quite uncomfortable to watch. You had the feeling that it would spin off like a marble off a 78 record, rather coincidently.

Exciting days.

[simes43]

If you have not seen this 70's video of Depailler in the wet at Montreal, you are
very lucky. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFDfctC_6M

[Tony2or4]

simes43 said:

If you have not seen this 70's video of Depailler in the wet at Montreal, you are
very lucky. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFDfctC_6M

That circuit seems unrecognizable. I completely lost track of whereabouts on the circuit he was.

[simonpeter]

Great clip, well done for finding it. Patrick was considered a top bloke and you can see why. Can`t see anyone these days happy to aquaplane like that, OK maybe Kimi. Canada was his last race for Tyrrrell before he went to Ligier for 1979. It was a terrible loss to the sport when he was killed testing the Alfa.

simes43 said:

If you have not seen this 70's video of Depailler in the wet at Montreal, you are
very lucky. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFDfctC_6M

[entropy]

simonpeter said:

I would read a good deal more about Jimmy before you form an opinion.
He was only the second man after Fangio to show any dominance in F1, winning 25 from only 76 starts. Done at a time when F1 cars were as brittle as matchwood. He had a light and competitive Lotus which was cirtainly not as reliable as a some, he simply took less out of his car with his silky smooth style. More importantly than any stats you could quote, he was a gentleman. A down to earth Scot who loved to drive anything with wheels. He threw a Lotus cortina around like a toy and was BTCC champ too. Not to mention winning the Indy 500. I would say Innes Ireland apart, he was almost universally admired as the best in his day and remembered with love by so many who witnessed his genius. Luck never came into it with Jimmy, he was the man.

But racing was even more of a parade then and media coverage was scant. We can only go by race reports which are not much different to watching highlights where you miss out on the ebb and flow of a race.

We're talking different eras but essentially Seb is making things look easy and doing things Webber and arguably his rivals couldn't, same as Jimmy.

[simonpeter]

I don`t see a brilliant driver doing things other drivers can`t as boring. I, like many who see and appreciate the likes of Jimmy, Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna, Schuey and Seb as the best. I could watch in car camera footage of those guys all day. likewise the likes of Gilles Villenueve, Ronnie Peterson and even the clip of Patrick Depaillier on this thread. In fact it would be a strange sport if the best didn`t win the way those guys have. It would be great if modern F1 cars were more race friendly, enabling closer action. But I don`t want DRS, KERS or like Indy racing, a yellow flag to bunch the field everytime a crisp packet floats across the track.

entropy said:

But racing was even more of a parade then and media coverage was scant. We can only go by race reports which are not much different to watching highlights where you miss out on the ebb and flow of a race.

We're talking different eras but essentially Seb is making things look easy and doing things Webber and arguably his rivals couldn't, same as Jimmy.

[Eric Mc]

The problem today is that the cars run on rails - mostly. Therefore, the sublime skills of someone like Vettel only manifest themselves by the gap he can open up lap after relentless lap.

For Clark and other drivers from earlier eras, you also had the "taming of the car" aspect to see in action. We don't see this anymore - even if it is happening - it's just not that obvious.

[Derek Smith]

entropy said:

But racing was even more of a parade then and media coverage was scant. We can only go by race reports which are not much different to watching highlights where you miss out on the ebb and flow of a race.

We're talking different eras but essentially Seb is making things look easy and doing things Webber and arguably his rivals couldn't, same as Jimmy.

Indeed. Just like that boring 1971 Italian GP. They barely managed to get four leaders in the final lap and the winner, Peter Gethin, only had to come from fifth. And the gap was massive 0.1 seconds.

[FiremanRob]

You lot must have been rich way back then, I waited every Thursday, but not for expensive Autosport (which was good) but for MOTORING NEWS. Really good read and very cheap as I recall. Really missed that when it finished.

[entropy]

Eric Mc said:

The problem today is that the cars run on rails - mostly. Therefore, the sublime skills of someone like Vettel only manifest themselves by the gap he can open up lap after relentless lap.

For Clark and other drivers from earlier eras, you also had the "taming of the car" aspect to see in action. We don't see this anymore - even if it is happening - it's just not that obvious.

I do wonder how acceptable "taming a car" would be for the masses and much more appreciated by aficionados whilst watching a parade.

Derek Smith said:

Indeed. Just like that boring 1971 Italian GP. They barely managed to get four leaders in the final lap and the winner, Peter Gethin, only had to come from fifth. And the gap was massive 0.1 seconds.

I was referring specifically to Clark's era. He could dominate a race like Vettel is today and make it look easy.

[simonpeter]

Nice one Derek, Monza 71, the closest and fastest ever if I remember correctly. Who wouldn`t want a return to racing like that? Sadly though I reckon Eric is correct about todays cars and drivers, if you drove a modern car like the greats of yesterday did you wouldn`t even qualify it. There was something magical about a Moss, Clark, Rindt, Siffert, Peterson, Villeneuve and co. fourwheel drifting and leading the race.